On 28/2/23 09:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 10:21:14AM -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 2/27/23 10:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:50:07AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>> I feel like we should have separate deprecation entries for the
>>> i686 host support, and for qemu-system-i386 emulator binary, as
>>> although they're related they are independant features with
>>> differing impact. eg removing qemu-system-i386 affects all
>>> host architectures, not merely 32-bit x86 host, so I think we
>>> can explain the impact more clearly if we separate them.
>>
>> Removing qemu-system-i386 seems ok to me - I think qemu-system-x86_64 is
>> a superset.
>>
>> Removing support for building on 32 bit systems seems like a pity - it's
>> one of a small number of ways to run 64 bit binaries on 32 bit systems,
>> and the maintainance overhead is quite small.
>
> It's not that small. It only works for single-threaded system mode. It
> silently does not honor atomicity for user-only mode, which is perhaps worse
> not working at all.
Will the same occur with 64-bit hosts when we introduce a 128-bit
target? If so, there is no much code we'll be able to drop,
We should probably block multi-threading on 32 bit then.
so this sound a user experience fix.